1 of 11

Update: Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model Working Group

June 16, 2017

2 of 11

EAMM Working Group Charge

The working group will delineate a pathway for Enterprise Architecture practices in higher education from start-up through full maturity
The maturity model will be predicated on existing industry frameworks and will serve as both a guide and assessment tool for practitioners and University leaders
The working group will also develop an Applied Practices Guide to address the required skills, methods and readiness indicators anticipated throughout the various stages of maturation

Meetings to Date

Comparison of Existing Maturity Models

Brainstorming EA Maturity Levels and Characteristics

Comparing Levels and Characteristics from Brainstorming

Topics of discussion

Along the way we’ve been discussing:

Model will not assume that a more mature practice necessarily has a broader scope
Model will extend to enterprise-wide EA that is not IT-centric, though many institutions may not aspire to or reach that end

Current Draft Maturity Levels (columns)

Level 0	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4
Initiating	Formed	Defined	Managed	Improving
Formal recognition of an EA practice does not exist. Socialization, visioning and planning develops organizational readiness to initiate an EA practice.	EA practice is formally recognized. Practice is reactive to opportunities. Organizational fit is gauged to determine capabilities that best serve the organization.	EA capabilities are clearly defined, processes are repeatable and results are tracked.	EA processes are refined, measured and controlled. EA capability is sustainably embedded into the organization.	EA performance metrics are collected, analyzed and acted upon to continually improve EA effectiveness.

Current Draft Maturity Levels (rows) 1 of 2

	Level 0	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4
Coverage Scope of alignment achieved by EA practices. Degree to which the institution’s EA practices encompass all: (a) Business domains (e.g., teaching/learning, research, finance) (b) Architecture domains (e.g., technology/solutions, data/information, business) (c) Capital Investment and Financial Planning (d) Management domains (e.g., strategy, investment, portfolio, service, product, project, and resource management)
Engagement Degree to which EA practices are embraced and enabled by: (a) Executives (b) Managers (c) Implementers
Strategy Ability of EA to deliver strategic impact: (a) Architectural effectiveness (b) IT alignment (c) Trusted business partner

Current Draft Maturity Levels (rows) 2 of 2

	Level 0	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4
Mechanisms Ability of EA to deliver on its mission through: (a) Services (b) Engagements (c) Processes (d) Reference architectures (e) Methods (f) Frameworks (g) Training and outreach
Management Ability of EA to manage itself effectively as a program in terms of: (a) Human resources (b) Work management (c) Financial management (d) Performance measures

Activity

What would you consider low or high maturity in the characteristics the working group is discussing?

Add your ideas in this Google Doc: